Because I assume you’re asking in food faith: Because animals suffer more - medication is not as available for humans. In nature they would starve or fall prey to hunters. As pets we rather give them something to die painlessly than to starve them.
To be clear: It’s literally “misery or death” - I hope you’ll never get into this situation but seeing a beloved animal suffer through something like this.
I mean good for anyone who’s into this - for me, I’ll stick with openscad though ( https://openscad.org/ ).
Same thing but with a dedicated language dedicated to 3D modeling, algebraic approach to shapes and a long history and track record.
In case you wanna give it a shot: I gave writing samples of myself from chat and emails to a self hosted LLM, telling it to extract the writing style deviations, key elements, common phrases, symbols, patterns, etc. Then gave that as a “answer it this style” system prompt expansion - works like … Quite okay. Still need to go over it or course but it doesn’t sound like marketing bullshit but conveys what I want.
Completely agree with your general assessment though! They’re getting better but the marketing machinery is crazy in their claims.
Because physically speaking, chaotic and unpredictable are two different things - and why it works so well on this case: it’s becoming a stochastic problem, not a deterministic one.
It’s an awesome area for machine learning: you didn’t need to understand the result and how it got created, it just needs to be “close enough”.
Oh I completely agree with that, just the jump to “a flawed model leaked” is too far. There’s already enough crap to mock, no need to make up additional stuff.
It’s bullshit. What leaked was their commandline tool source code (named “claude code”) - very juicy in itself but has nothing to do with their models.
It’s not connected. Don’t get me wrong I agree with your sentiment - but law doesn’t care about ethics or morale or anything.
“Public doctrine” is nothing they exists, legally. Toy are wasting bandwidth of change.org .
No the claim is dubious because it’s equalling “written on bank note” with “must be basis for legal discussions”.
I tried more “niche from a popular perspective”. You’re right, especially alpine is in the background of a lot of docker containers but rarely an end user who just want their desktop environment knows them.
For nixos I’ve not yet seen anyone in the enterprise world pushing for it - there it’s still all about containerization and orchestration in cloud environments, using that as reproducibility layer. That might change though with data sovereignty discussions going on.
I can see where you’re coming from! Specifically this community though I’ve not seen it a lot - you’re completely right though, the more native one becomes the more one is confronted with it.
I’m still struggling with the slowness of things (e.g. a quick endpoint change) and I can’t get my head around reason error messages “fluently”, i.e. I have to think about what the errors want to tell me instead of resolving it - a bit like old python stuff really.
And then there are the edge cases … It took me a long time to change the config the very first time while offline - which makes sense from a model perspective but from my user brain it was just … wrong :D
Perhaps I should switch my clients as well to get more exposure…
In addition to alpine id also throw nixos in.
It’s a real niche OS with a very different approach to setup and configuration than any other I’ve seen and tested. It’s now my server Linux and after more than a year I’m still not sure if I would recommend it 😂
If you are truly serious: this is not how hallucinations work. It’s really best to think of it as “fancy auto complete”. The hallucinations happen when the next token is too disconnected from what we as humans would call as “belonging together”. But it’s all math after all.
Limit the k value, tube down temperature and cut off context size and the issue of hallucinations is a non-topic for “transcribe and summarize”.
You get into what I’d call “stupid” territory like you’re describing.
Your second point I fully agree with and is the reason why I’d ask the doc directly. To give the personal anecdote: the transcript itself helps me to focus on exactly the topics you’ve described: who’s confused? Where was agreement? Where did people just not speak up?
A specific hallucination example I see every other day for example are tasks: that thing “thinks” that “we should” or “you must” are always tasks and outcomes which is utter bullshit - but I know that and using the transcript part helps me focus on the important part, the humans.
Counter top the popular opinion here for me it would be a clear yes in the situation you’re describing.
The relationship with my direction doc is more believable to me than principles of vague bad feelings for me.
Now taking and transcripts specifically are one of the use cases I also draw value out myself. I’d ask the doc though how they’re using it.
Still I’d rather have my transcript public than to go on that search for a doctor match again.
They (US politics) literally do though, right? At least that’s my impression as a non US person.
If my understanding is correct it would need an overhaul of the constitution to change that, right? (The part about representatives of states cascading to select the representatives who then select the boss).
I’m quite uneducated though in US politics so perhaps I’ve got something completely wrong!
“Sag Mal Du als Richterin”, but it’s locked away behind the audible paywall sadly.
Oh yeahz you’re right from what I know! Reference cases are used, at least in Germany, all the time, especially looking at the closing argument of the judgment itself (according to that one judge podcast I listen to which makes me an internet expert, doesn’t it?).
Good point!
Again: depends on the legal system that statement is not that easy in that generic form.
Ik specifically thinking about the situation in which a human no longer can communicate what they want:
In Germany there is the legal concept of transferring this kind of decision power in case you yourself are no longer able to do that. The “pulling the plug” situation: the individual can no longer state their wishes directly concerning the situation but left a binding document who has the decision power in their stead.
Now you could argue that this also is “the human has to want it” as they wanted the other person to have this life and death power.
In Europe I’m now aware of any common law or precedence law approaches so even if there’d be a case like you described (which I would be interested in!) it wouldn’t have binding qualities for the bullshit that onlyoffice is pulling off.
Dipshits.
As someone else said: helping humans find a dignified death is legal in some countries.
Your second point is more complicated though: I don’t know the laws in a lot of countries but where I’m from animals are strictly treated as property - emotional connection isn’t taken into strong consideration at all when it comes to assessing their value when it comes to legal fights but they are treated like a distinct thing different from both humans and objects in a lot of other cases (e.g. dedicated laws like “unnecessary” animal cruelty is forbidden ).
About the reason you can discuss as much as you want, the two arguments I’ve stumbled across are:
there must not be a distinction in terms of value because that value must be purely subjective and cannot be assessed.
There is no objective way to classify animals based on emotional connection and therefore the law can’t create categories.
Culturally we treat animals like different to humans all the time - even your dog is not treated “family” to the extreme a child would (think of child protection laws and what that would mean if they’d apply to a dog or a hamster). And now expand this to find a definition which covers both a cow someone has as a beloved pet or a meat animal.
Note that I’m trying to not say wether this is “right” or “wrong”: morale categories and laws have some overlap but they are quite lose as soon as you get specific.
My primary source was an interview with a judge who went into an hour long discussion about how complex the relation between animals and the law is and how “emotional connection” and the need for the law to be objective and repeatable are an inherent contradiction.
In short:
It’s a very tough question because there isn’t the one correct answer. Law, morality and personal subjectivity collide and make a mess out of us.
Feeling with you, stranger friend!
Serious tip: don’t traumatize your child by making it over the top traumatic and they’ll be fine!
Your instinct is correct, kids have an amazing grasp on life and death.
I had and have the same topic with my back then three year old. I won’t go into details but death is a topic for quite a while now.
Be open, be honest and don’t shy away from translating it to his level: If he had a favorite toy that got destroyed it’s an emotional connection he can make for example.
One important thing for me to point out though because it caught me as a shock: true empathy is impossible for a kid that age. Meaning: the chance is high that hell say something that will be completely out of the blue or shocking - expect it and don’t be too harsh please, even when he’ll manage to trigger something ❤️